5 comments about The Death of Sigmund Freud: The Legacy of His Last Days.

1. The Death of Sigmund Freud is a perfect companion book to the bigger Freud biographies ... a critical addition to the Freud section of your personal library on this fascinating man, doctor, thinker. The author begins the narrative just before Freud fled Vienna for England ... and it ends with Freud's pitiful death.
   
   The comparative exploration of the life of Hitler and Freud as Europe began to change is interesting and well constructed, but the real fascination is found in the details of Freud's working and personal life. I think the real punch in a biography is felt at the point in the book where you feel the subject's been fleshed out ... really captured by the author ... and Freud is now more real and understood in my mind than ever before. He's a mythic personality now. He was back in his day. Edmundson has rendered Freud's human, day-to-day life beautifully ... and what Freud professionally and personally believed, whether it's believable to us or not.
   
   Reviewer Todd Sentell, a Psychology major who graduated "Oh Lordy," is also the author of the hilarious social satire, TOONAMINT OF CHAMPIONS



2. Outstanding book....couldn't put it down. As a psychology teacher this book really put into perspective Freud and his relationship to Hitler and many other prominent leaders of the time. Historically, it brought together so many of the major movers and shakers of Hitler's quest for power. Highly recommend for those interested in Freud or Hitler.



3. OK, who were the most influential people of the 20th century? Einstein, Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and Freud. You can jockey the order, probably add Hitler depending on your definition of "influential", but that's the short list.
   
   Freud's life as a writer/thinker, like Churchill's and Einstein's, was very long. If you want to learn something about this giant, you definitely want to start slowly. THE DEATH OF SIGMUND FREUD is a great way to get a feel for both the man and what he stood for. Mark Edmundson picks up Freud, after a brief introduction about Vienna in 1909, in 1938. Freud is 81, in poor health, and about to come under Adolf Hitler's Anchluss.
   
   Edmundson, in this short volume, gives you a great feel for how Sigmund Freud lived: how his study looked, his industriousness, his love of dogs, his relationship with his daughter Anna, his relationships with his disciples, what Freud's Vienna was like, what he collected, his (ultimately dangerous) love of cigars, etc. Even if the book did nothing more than accumulate these bits of Freud's life in 1938 and 1939, it would be wonderful, because what can an author do beyond transporting the reader to a place and time? And what a place and time! Freud, Hitler, Vienna, Anchluss.
   
   The author also gives readers a great short course on some of Sigmund Freud's work. As certain subjects dominate the last year of Freud's life - the rise of Nazism, his relationship with his daughter, the need for conflict in his life to create brilliant work, his enjoyment and suspicion of fame, his need to shock and create controversy (to name a few) - Edmundson describes how Freud wrote about those matters, quoting from and summarizing Sigmund's most famous theories and ideas, usually from works created decades before.
   
   Even as an introduction to Sigmund Freud, this book is incomplete (though by design). But it gives you a taste as well as a feeling you're following Freud at the end of his life, trying to make sense of it all. You may find yourself, like me, back on Amazon.com looking for a comprehensive biography of Freud and ordering translations of some of his classic works. I'd say that's a pretty high compliment for the book and author.



4. This is not intended as a complete review, as I have nothing to add to the other reviews which appear in this space. However, in what is otherwise a thought-provoking and inspiring book, there are some lapses in German usage which are a little disconcerting. Nouns in German always capitalize the first letter, so it is a bit wierd to see Hitler referred to as "the fuhrer" rather than "the Fuhrer". (And the capitalization would give a better sense of his own self-importance.) Also, in spite of the fact that recent spelling modifications now render the combination "oe" as a single "o" with an umlaut, this does not usually apply to dead historical personages such as Goering or Goethe.



5. "The Death of Sigmund Freud" is a timely look at the last days of Freud since he was facing the march of Nazism, and since after 9-11, the US has tilted quite a bit to the Right, and it is wise to weigh into possible reasons to be concerned about tilting further, and a look from Freud's perspective is certainly interesting.
   
   Since anti-Semitism was rampant at the time, from the book, critics did say that psychoanalysis was right, just that it was a 'Jewish Science' only applying to Jews, an attempt to discredit it. Some of Freud's thoughts on the matter were:
   
   1. Freud called the relationship crowds form with an absolute leader, erotic. Hitler, himself, in his speeches said that he made love to the German masses. Essentially, the crowds become hypnotized. Not that we are anywhere near such a situation, but one surely can notice a more 'patriotic' tone to many of the current presidential supporters and calling dissenters un-patriotic.
   
   2. Inner conflict, between one's ego, id, and superego, is not only inevitable, but desirable to better modify behavior. Seeking some perpetual, peaceful state is dangerous because it is more likely to erupt into really bad behavior. So, public dissent is healthy and should be encouraged.
   
   3. Freud, a Jew, recognized in monotheism, that the ability to internalize an invisible god prepares a person to think more abstractly. He saw Jews' long history with that as allowing Jews to distinguish themselves in math, sciences, law and literary arts, ways which effect some control over nature. Better to have some invisible god, than some human authoritarian one, be it political or some religious one who tries to have crowds focus on him or her. Freud felt that such thinking made Jews more likely to reject pageantry and less susceptible to elevating humans to god-like status, one reason for anti-Semitism to run rampant as Nazis knew they would meet resistance from Jews. Not that one should conclude that Judaism is superior, just that the internalizing of an invisible god is the important part of monotheism.
   
   4. Rather than blame something about Germany, Japan or Italy for the rise of 20th century fascism, Freud felt that internally we are all fascists/fundamentalists, at least potentially. So, it is the inner conflict we need to use to overcome it. Once again, dissent is healthy.
   
   A very interesting book!

5 comments about Twilight of Splendor: The Court of Queen Victoria During Her Diamond Jubilee Year.

1. One of my favorite authors on the subject of royalty continues to be Greg King. He has focused most of his work on Tsarist Russia, but now with Twilight of Splendor he has taken a look at one of the most pivotal years of Great Britain's Queen Victoria -- a monarch who set her mark on an entire century, and whose presence still lingers today.
   
   King takes one year in the Queen's life, and explores her daily life, starting first with an outline of her childhood, and marriage to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and then to some of the momentous events of the years 1896-1897, when she became Britain's longest reigning monarch, and the festivities surrounding her Diamond Jubilee year to celebrate sixty years on the throne. By this time Victoria was not just a queen, but also Empress of India, and the British Empire was indeed a land where the sun never set. Colonies and possessions sent emissaries and gifts, all building towards a grand festival in London to mark the occansion.
   
   But King goes beyond a mere listing of Queen Victoria's children and grandchildren -- he explores the rather tempetuous relationships that she had with them, especially her daughters. Neither were her sons spared the maternal disapproval either -- her eldest son Bertie, the Prince of Wales, she blamed for his father's death and his social life brought further displeasure. He in turn, took out his frustrations at not having any sort of decision-making in political roles in hard living, mostly involving smoking, chasing women and sport. Nor was Bertie the only fast living Royal -- daughter Louise was notorious for her acid tongue and mischief making, and Helena developed a near crippling addiction to opium.
   
   The most interesting section was an exploration of the various courtiers that surrounded the Queen. There was an enormous army of servants, from those who laboured in the royal kitchens, footmen who carried messages and opened doors, housemaids who swept and scrubbed and tidied, all the way up to the aristocratic men that oversaw their work. While these men would never be confidants or friends, they would form close bonds of trust with the Queen, working with her for years, until ill-health or death remove them from the office. Much more shadowy were the servants that worked more closely with the Queen, most notorious being a Scotsman by the name of John Brown, of whom it was said that the queen had actually married him, and after his death, two Indian servants who were arrogant scoundrels.
   
   The Queen's court of servants, family and attendants moved in a predictible round of seasons and holidays. Springtime and most of summer were spent at the castle complex at Windsor, autumn in the Scottish highlands at Balmoral, and winter at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight. Buckingham Palace was a place that the Queen loathed to stay in, and it was only during the most formal of events that the queen would stay at the Palace for even a night. In addition, the Queen and her household would holiday on the French Riviera every two months in springtime, an activity that continued from 1890 to nearly the very end of her long life. Pilgrimages would be made to her beloved husband's tomb every year on the anniversary of his death.
   
   And sometimes, relatives would visit from the far reaches of the world to visit. One of the more momentous occansions was when one of Victoria's favorite granddaughters visited during the autumn of 1897. Alix and her siblings had been raised mostly by the Queen after the death of their mother, Alice, and Alix had been wooed and won by Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia. Now Alix was Empress, and with her husband and child went to visit as the new couple toured Europe after their coronation. Another momentous occansion that is covered is the grand costumed affair at the height of the London season at Devonshire House. Royalty and aristocracy mingled, as much to show off their wealth, and to be seen and see. Several ladies managed to arrive as the same characters from history, accompanied by much glaring. Other little snippets included the rituals of garden parties and presentations, Christmas celebrations, and finally the Diamond Jubilee itself.
   
   I have to say that this was a real eyeopener of a book. All too often authors skip over the people who kept the various castles and palaces running and livable. King also adds in plenty of gossipy details, little touches that help to make these stiff figures from formal portraits come alive as well. While King's narrative does get repetitous what with the same descriptive passages being used over and over, the story does move along crisply, with quite a bit of detail being given. There are several inserts of black and white photos and etchings as well. Along with the bibliography and footnotes, there is an appendix that list the various members of the Queen's hosuehold during the final years of her life.
   
   For anyone interested in the details of how royals lived in the nineteenth century, this is a splendid read. I discovered that the royalty of the time were imprisoned as much as they ruled from a golden, rather spendid, cage. Days were carefully measured and plotted out, and oridinary people and the journalists were just as curious about them as they are now in the twenty-first century. While the reading does get a bit dull in spots, it's still enjoyable, and there's quite a bit of humor here and there to liven things up.
   
   Recommended.



2. Queen Victoria is the longest reigning monarch in English history. She ascended the throne in 1837 dying on January 22, 1901. During those sixty plus years she saw the Western World transform itself from an agricultural to an industrial economy. Though she preferred candles she saw electricity come into general use. Victoria stoold 4ft 10. high.She was proclaimed as Empress of India in 1877. Victoria lent her name to an age and a vanished nineteenth century world explored in depth by historian Greg King in "Twilight of Splendor." King is most noted for his earlier work on the court of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia.He focuses on her life and that of her empire in 1897 as her jubilee year on the throne was celebrated by millions of her obedient subjects.
   In this 300 page book the author examines Victoria and her family. She was raised as the daughter of the Duchess of Kent who was early widowed. She and her mother did not get along well. Victoria spoke with a German and Scotch accent. She became queen when her sailor uncle William IV died in 1837. She was plain and intelligent. Victoria came to rely on such Prime Ministers as her beloved Lord Melbourne and later Disraeli.
   She was honest and witty. She lacked a good formal education though she could read foreign languages and the occasional novel. Victoria had a fierce temper and a tart tongue. Victoria was very obese and had no fashion sense. Her tastes in art and literature were middle-brow.
   Victoria married Albert of Saxe-Cothburg. The happy couple were parents of nine children prior to Albert's death in 1861. Victoria worshipped Albert sleeping each night next to a picture of him taped to the headboard of her bed. Albert's room and possessions remained as they had left them when he died. She was buried next to him at Frogmore. The Royal Albert Hall was built in his memory. When Albert died Victoria refused to wear anything but black for the rest of her long life.
   Victoria had rocky moments with her large brood of children. She did not get along well with the Prince of Wales who lived a womanizing, dissolute playboy life. He became King in 1901. Victoria was closest to her eldest daughter Vicki who became the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Several of her children married crowned heads of Europe. She was truly the grandmother of monarchy.
   In addition to telling the story of Victoria's family we learn from Greg King about the architecture of her palaces of Buckingham, Osborne on the Isle of Wight, Balmoral in Scotland and Windsor Palace. Victoria hated London living in Buckingham and prefered Windsor or her other castles. She was waited on hand and foot by hundreds of servants in a well organized royal househod. King goes into detail on what she ate along with her guests. He tells us what attendance at balls and social events was like in her day. Victoria was no snob enjoying friendships with an Indian servant and the Scottish gilly John Brown. She did not like the British aristocracy and practiced middle class morals. She enjoyed painting and wrote two books on her life in the Highlands at Balmoral. All of her life she kept a detailed diary of her life and times.
   Victoria was no intellectual but a good person who gave millions to chairty and led England with dignity and honor. When she died in 1901 over one-fourth of the world was ruled by Great Britain.
   King's book is well-researched and gives us a good insight into the private and public life of one of England's greatest rulers. He does fail to discuss the poverty of many of Victoria's subjects though he does briefly cover the conflict with the Boers in South Africa and Irish unrest.



3. just got the book on her daughter the last princess.i hope it is as good as this one was.



4. I don't think I've ever criticized a book for too much detail, but I do need to in this case. The book is obviously very well-researched, but sometimes it absolutely overwhelms the reader with details. A tour of a circa-1897 room, for example, provides the author with an opportunity to describe nearly every item in the room, how long it had been there, when it had last been moved, and who liked which items more than the others. Sometimes it was just too *much*, and I felt I was drowning in detail. In addition, every time the author cited an amount of money circa-1897, he provided a currency exchange in dollars and pounds in 2007 figures, down to the last dollar! I think it would have been enough to say that a diamond necklace would cost $22 million today, and not necessarily have to say that it would cost $22,316,812. The obsessive detail on that was a bit overwhelming.
   
   There were also a couple places where the author had favorite terms or words he liked, and used over and over. Lace wasn't just lace - it was always "Honiton lace". A member of the public who wrote something was *always* referred to as a "wag".
   
   Overall, while it was an interesting look into the Diamond Jubilee year of Queen Victoria, there was just *too* much detail. The minutiae of the book detracted from the splendor and grandeur of her celebration.



5. king explores the rather tempetuous relationship queen victoria had with her childern and grandchildern,their relationship with each other.who just happen to be many of europe's royal houses.

5 comments about Personal Memoirs: Ulysses S. Grant (Modern Library War).

1. Although Grant doesn't blow his own horn, a close reading of his campaign accounts supports the "revisionist" view that far from being a butcher of men and Lee's inferior, Grant's victories (other than Shiloh) were tactical in nature, not brute force charges. (OK, there was Cold Harbor, but that was one mistake in a year-long campaign to destroy the South before the North lost its will to fight. Time was not on Grant's side.) Furthermore, Lee, Jackson, Johnson, et. al. always had the easier side of the equation, playing defense and disrupting the North's long lines of supply and communication.
   
   This is also an interesting study on how an apparently unremarkable person find greatness within himself when he is in his element, and how a great general can fail as a president because the leadership roles are quite different.
   
   There is a dry wit in much of Grant's writing which makes it a fun read even if you don't care for the details of his capture of Vicksburg and his eventual destruction of the South's Eastern armies. Grant does not shy away from describing the slogging nature of the war or his mastery of maneuver warfare.



2. This book really provides incredible insight into Grant and what made him a great general. In a plainspoken & straightforward manner he gives a recount of his role in the war and his military philosophy (attack). Unlike a modern autobiography we get nothing personal or confessional (not necessarily a bad thing). Any mention of drinking, or his dismal presidency are omitted and his family gets only a paragraph or two; which is fine because no one is interested in Grant's parenting or presidenting tips.



3. I think this is the only real account you can get of the civil war. It's...Great!



4. It is surprising that the most balanced and impartial view of U.S. Grant should be written by Grant himself. His style of writing is clear and sparse, recounting fact as fact and without lengthy editorializing. A must read for any civil war buff or serious historian.



5. Written by the dying hand of one of the chosen men of his time. For any scholar of Grant, Civil War or Military History, these readings are a must. Grant's military genius was without equal. Had his superiors, early on, had his keen foresight, the Civil War could have ended a year or two earlier. Another great read is "Grant" by Jean Smith.

5 comments about Wolf Willow: A History, a Story, and a Memory of the Last Plains Frontier (Penguin Twentieth-Century Classics).

1. Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Wallace Stegner grew up on the prairie frontiers of North Dakota, Saskatchewan, and Montana, and in the mountains of Utah. As is indicated by the subtitle, this volume combines history, a memoir, and historical fiction. Readers who have spent significant time on the snow swept northern steppes may find a small part of themselves, and of this land, in Wolf Willow. ...
   "On those miraculously beautiful and murderously cold nights glittering with the green and blue darts from a sky like polished dark metal, when the moon had gone down, leaving the hollow heavens to the stars and the overflowing cold light of the Aurora, he thought he had moments of the clearest vision ... In every direction ... the snow spread; here and there the implacable plain glinted back a spark - the beam of a cold star reflected in a crystal of ice." (The scene evokes in me a powerful memory, as I recall often standing alone on just such "murderously cold" snow blanketed prairies and gazing into those "miraculously beautiful" night skies.)



2. Part history and part dreamy reminiscence, this book is an account of a boy growing up in Southwest Saskatchewan in the early part of the 20th Century. The central portion of the book is pure history, and the long chapters on cowboys are particularly challenging because they require an intimate knowledge of cowboy terminology. Stegner does not mince words about the difficulties of life on the plains--extremes of heat and cold, wind, hostile topography, lack of cultural amenities--the result of which is that most who grew up there moved elsewhere. But he also shows a passionate attachment for the country of his childhood. The narrative often seems rambling because, like James Michener, the author tries to incorporate so much besides history--including the biology and geology of the nearby Cypress Hills, the biologically diverse area nearby--and even his poetic musings have elements of fact, as when he describes the wind, or the gophers, or his swimming hole, or his school, or his family's homestead, or the problems involved in the town's incorporation.



3. This wonderful collection of essays and fiction about the last Western frontier is both romance and anti-romance. Writing in the 1950s, Stegner captures the breath-taking beauty of the unbroken plains of southwest Saskatchewan and the excitement of its settlment at the turn of the century. Part memoir, the book recounts the years of his boyhood in a small town along the Whitemud River in 1914-1919, the summers spent on the family's homestead 50 miles away along the Canadian-U.S border. His book is also an account of the loss of that Eden and the failed promise of agricultural development in this semi-arid region with thin top soil.

   Stegner is a gifted, intelligent writer, able to turn the people and events of history into compelling reading. The opening section of the book describes the experience of being on the plains and specifically in the area where Stegner was a boy. And it lays out the geography of that land -- a distant range of hills, the river, the coulees, the town -- which the book will return to again and again.

   The following section evokes the period of frontier Canada's early exploration, the emergence of the metis culture, the destruction of the buffalo herds, the introduction of rangeland cattle, and then wave upon wave of settlement pushing the last of the plains Indians westward and northward. A chapter is devoted to the surveying of the boundary along the Canada-U.S. border; another chapter describes the founding of the Mounted Police and its purely Canadian style of bringing law and order to the wild west.

   The middle section of the book is a novella and a short story about the winter of 1906-1907. In the longer piece, eight men rounding up cattle are caught on the open plains in an early blizzard. Stegner builds the drama and the peril of their situation artfully and convincingly. The final section of the book returns to Stegner's memories of the town and the homestead, ending with his family's departure for Montana.

   Stegner lived at a time and in a place where a person born in the 20th century could still experience something of the sweep of history that transformed the American plains. I've read many books about the West, and because of his depth of thought, his gifts as a writer, and his unflinching eye, Stegner's work ranks for me among the best. I heartily recommend this book.




4. This book has no right to be so absorbing. Though the topic of this forgotten book by Wallace Stegner reeks of self-indulgence-- A writer returns to where he grew up, reminisces about his youth and the history of the frontier town his transient childhood most identified as home and concludes with a 100-page fictionalized account of a the terrible winter of 1906-- he manages to tie his past inexorably to ours, linking his nostalgia for his youth with our own, and exploring the promise and inevitable waste of the American Dream lived out on our frontiers.
   
   Stegner, like Proust, experiences an "ancient, unbearable recognition" spurred by a return to the sites, sounds, and most importantly, smells of his childhood. He dreams of this period and is "haunted, on awakening, by a sense of meanings just withheld, and by a profound nostalgic melancholy." Everyone has some awareness of a deep meaning lurking in our past that has not, or cannot, be fully interpreted.
   
   Perhaps the best part of the book is section three, the novella length exposition on the hope and danger of the high plains that does a superb job of creating looming dread as the winter drops hard on the land. Near the end of section three, Stegner expounds on what it is to be an American pursuing the Dream:
   
   "How does one know what wilderness has meant to Americans unless he has shared the guilt of wastefully and ignorantly tampering with it in the name of progress? One who has lived the dream, the temporary fulfillment, and the disappointment has had the full course.... The vein of melancholy in the North American mind may be owing to many causes, but it is surely not weakened by the perception that the fulfillment of the American Dream means inevitably the death of the noble savagery and freedom of the wild. Any who has lived on a frontier knows the inescapable ambivalence of the old-fashioned American conscience, for he has first renewed himself in Eden and then set about converting it into the lamentable modern world."



5. Stegner once again reveals his writing prowess, This time in a self-indulgent adventure to haunts of his youth.
   
   I have some qualms about this work, however. In particular, I was not so keen on those parts where Stegner relied heavily on book-based history that never directly touched his own life. To be frank, his writing in these parts surprisingly got a bit stodgy.
   
   His thought on sense of place and belonging, however, are remarkable, hitting me right between the eyes. Indeed, he had me wistfully recalling my own childhood in what seemed a remote area of the world with the archaeological junk heap and all. In measuring his boyhood to my own, I noted how little times had changed in that interval of 60-70 years and how much has changed for kids in the last 40. It had me wondering how my own sons lives would be different were it not for the MAFIA (mother's against fun in America).

5 comments about Fourth Uncle in the Mountain: The Remarkable Legacy of a Buddhist Itinerant Doctor in Vietnam.

1. This breathtaking autobiography has resonated really with me. Coming from a Vietnamese background as well as having a lineage of traditional healers, Quang's story has the same tones within the realm of traditional medicine that were told to me as a child.
   
   As an acupuncture student, Quang's journey had a lot similarities to that in which I'm encountering. It was amazing reading this book because every step of the way, you felt as if you were with him.
   
   With mysticism/magic, acupuncture, herbs, ghosts, spirits, and myriad of characters, Fourth Uncle... is truly one of the greatest qutobiographies that I've read in a long time.



2. I read a lot. I never write reviews. I will for this book because it is an all time great. A classic. You will never forget it.



3. In buddhist legend, meditation adepts attain a "samadhi fantastic beyond description". This is Fourth Uncle. The magic, sorcery, and martial art stories give way to the natural magic of one pointed concentration - in the cave of the primoridal, original, and pristine mind. I enjoyed this book so much, in spite of the tragic backdrop of pre and post Vietnamese history. There is a great human truth here, that goes beyond religions, in the narration that radiates out through the eyes of a child coming into adulthood. There is also a lot of what is called by aboriginal peoples, "indigenous knowledge" about Viet Nam, which sadly may be disappearing because of enviromental desecration. This book is also a hommage to the folk doctor tradition. This tradition, so vital to the revitalization of the human spirit, is also in danger of being marginalized by institutionalized medicine. Better that it be accommodated for what it is - natural wisdom.



4. Reading this book, took me to a place far away...
   
   One easily forgets that this book was NOT written hundreds of years ago. With all the details, explanations and stories... you feel like your watching a movie... and hoping it will never "end"..
   
   As an herbalist and acupuncturist, I felt some connections with the Author, however I cannot even relate to his level of education and knowledge, due to his extensive training... and my 4 years of schooling...
   
   This is simply the best book I have ever read. It has moved me, changed my views in many ways and has made me want to be a better healer.... thank you my friend... whom I've never met...



5. This book was recommended to me by my sister. I found "Fourth Uncle" to be fascinating - with detailed descriptions of the landscape of Vietnam, the people and their superstitions, the atrocities of the war, and the mystical ways of the healers and sorcerers. As a child in Vietnam, I had heard stories about village "doctors" from my mother who grew up in the countryside. "Fourth Uncle in the Mountain" brought back memories of those tales and also opened my mind to the "magic" that the mind and spirit can manifest when we have the right intention and faith in ourselves.

5 comments about The Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon.

1. The Pillowbook of Sei Shonagon, by Sei Shonagon and translated by Ivan Morris, was a fascinating look into the Heian period of Japan. I was assigned this reading for one of my college courses, but I was surprised by just how quickly I was able to get into the reading and enjoy it. In its original incarnation it was meant as a diary, and only later did Sei Shonagon's work begin to be circulated as actual literature. The fact that it has survived to this day is astounding, as it was written over a thousand years ago, but after reading it I am easily able to understand just how it is that this work has survived for so long.
   
   The style of writing itself changes between different passages, and it is always easy to understand. A great many of the stories are poignant and have underlying meanings that carry on to the modern day. Her story with regards to the dog Okinamaro is absolutely heart-breaking, even if it's short, and her inside look into court politics allows us to see what it was like in the imperial lifestyle at the time.
   
   I don't think Sei Shonagon ever intended for her writings to become wide-spread like this, but I for one feel lucky that it did. At this point, I'm definitely going to be purchasing a copy of my own just so that I can pick it up whenever I want to.



2. If Sei Shonagon were alive today, she would be a livejournalist. That's the overall impression I got from this book--it reads very much like a modern livejournal or blog, being a collection of random observations on whatever Shonagon found interesting, lists of things she likes or dislikes, and snippets or scraps of poetry. Shonagon's use of metaphor and imagery is quite beautiful, and paints an evocative picture of a world, life, time and society very different from that of the modern day. However, she herself and the social circle in which she moves come off as fairly shallow, trivial and self-absorbed, as well as grotesquely classist and sometimes even cruel (as when she and her fellow ladies in waiting send a mocking poem to a commoner who has just lost his entire house and worldly possessions in a fire from which his son barely escaped.) Of course, given her own social status and position in her society at the time, perhaps these attitudes are to be expected; however, they still are not particularly attractive.
   
   Nevertheless her writing is very readable, engaging, light and witty, and of course it is of great historical and literary significance, especially for something that was, by her own admission, not intended to be circulated publicly. It makes me wonder if any of today's blogosphere authors will still be read a thousand years from now, and what picture they will paint of modern society if they are.



3. Shonagon's pillow book is not only one of the best surviving literary works of the Heian era. It's also a remarkable document that has preserved and conveyed the conventions, sensibilities and zeitgeist of the period in pristine detail. The woman herself may very well have been an impossible bore for her acquaintances, but the objectivity of her personality and the intricate understanding that she possessed of both her personal experiences and the unique imperial culture in which she was a cog are tremendously admirable.
   
   I prefer Ivan Morris's English translation because, as the most rigid and frigid of the three published, his comes closest to conveying Shonagon's probable demeanor. Waley's translation is decent, but his footnotes are poor and his prose is a pinch too overstated. McKinney's new translation is mushy trash that attempts to identify Shonagon's refined femininity with a vein of simpleminded modernism that colors everything produced by this Australian twit; avoid it at all costs.



4. There are many translations of this and I didn't like this one the best. I felt that this edition had been "censored", and that is unfortunate. Also, the organization by subject was a bit heavy-handed and unnecessary. I think that anyone who has every kept a journal would appreciate The Pillow Book in a less "pre-digested" form. The first time I read this (in college), it was translated with as little messing with as possible, and for that it deserves five stars...



5. Even after 1000 years, Sei Shonagon lives & breathes & fascinates in the pages of her pillow book. And what a memorable woman! Witty, infuriating, a sensitive observer of life's little surprises & disappointments, an appalling snob -- but there's no ignoring her. Personally, I love the random nature of her entries, as the mood & occasion catch her, from her delightful lists to her often cutting comments about the other court ladies. Beneath all the precise & delicate form, there was obviously quite a hothouse of personal politics!
   
   And she has a real eye for the telling detail, the revealing incident. Depending on the circumstances, she can evoke empathy, spit fire & venom, or make you want to shake her furiously. A perfect window into another time & way of life, and always a pleasure to dip into, this is an excellent edition. The translation is clear & lyrical without being artificially "poetic," and ample notes are provided for the Western reader.
   
   Most highly recommended!

5 comments about T.R.: The Last Romantic.

1. The bar is high for H.W. Brands - after a bigoraphy as nearly perfect as "The First American" we have come to expect great things. Well in "TR" we have a nearly perfect biography on Teddy Roosevelt.
   
   To me, Brands strength is his flowing style that often reads as fiction. Unfortunately that is the lone chink in "TR" it is a little choppy and not as fluid as we have come to expect.
   
   As far as the subjects matter: Teddy Roosevelt may have been the strongest personality America has produced ...ever. His life is one that reads of power, strength and an enormous drive to achieve great things. Brands is able to capture these elements of TR's life and paint a fascinating picture of a man that was born to be president (interestingly enough TR is one of the few men who ever ENJOYED being president).
   
   As a whole - I will admit that I was still a little disappointed, mainly dur to my respect for Brands. While "TR" is not to the level of "The First American" it is still better than your typical biography on Teddy Roosevelt.



2. Two of the finest historical biographies I have consumed in my lifetime have come from the pen of H.W. Brands. The work at hand on Theodore Roosevelt was published in 1997; the other, on Benjamin Franklin, in 2000. Both works pass muster for scholarly accuracy and content. What is intriguing is the author's ability to adapt style to his subject and the times. Franklin's life carries the gravitas of the building of the constitutional life of the United States of America. Roosevelt's, in contrast, bears the energy of a man who came to power as America was high on its own industrial hubris. Brands' Roosevelt is a product of the Gilded Age with the common sense to see its tarnish as well. The T.R. of this work may not be wise, but he was definitely smart.
   
   Born a sickly child to a New York family of some means in 1858, young Roosevelt almost from first consciousness set himself on the road to self-improvement. Brands suggests that one motivating factor may have been Roosevelt's regard for his father, Theodore Sr. The elder Roosevelt had been successful in business and family life, but there was one glaring omission in his resume: he had purchased his way out of the 1863 Union draft. How much this $300 gesture affected his son is a mystery, of course, but there is no denying that the young Theodore [and later, the middle-aged Theodore] would never miss a bugle call.
   
   Roosevelt's professional resume is eclectic and even eccentric. Although he was born into money, he was not so rich that he needn't work. A lawyer by profession, Roosevelt's drive and self confidence would never let him live conventionally, and he seems to have suffered from chronic "vocational crisis." For the young and the restless of his day, the two great frontiers were politics and the open West, and T.R. ventured into both.
   
   There is some irony in this, because in truth Roosevelt was not genetically suited for either. His Dakota ranching years proved to be an expensive, uncomfortable, and at times dangerous experiment that took a large bite from the family fortunes. On the other hand, he acquired the skills that would later help him corral enemies in his gilded Republican party. Dakota in many ways was the paradigm for the political Roosevelt: a man strangely out of place in a hostile environment who proved to be doggedly likeable and yet someone not to be trifled with, either.
   
   His rise through the Republican Party was the antithesis of, say, that of McKinley or Harding, or even his dear friend Henry Cabot Lodge. Put briefly, he was so loud and so popular that party leaders virtually had to hold their noses and swallow hard. Brands' description of Roosevelt's nomination to the vice-presidency sounds for all the world like the tale of a middle manager being booted upstairs because no one could work with him. Roosevelt in the executive branch was bearable; it was, after all, a McKinley universe.
   
   McKinley, sadly, departed the scene sooner than anyone expected. And yet, for his seven-plus years in the White House, Roosevelt must have felt as if he was still in the McKinley orbit. He was not totally unlike his young relative Franklin Roosevelt in terms of political fortunes: electorally untouchable, professionally anathema. In the case of T.R., he captured the great electoral middle ground with rhetoric that decried the trusts and the excesses of big business, on the one hand, and radicalism on the other. He would easily have captured the 1908 election had he kept his mouth shut, but he felt compelled to honor his public remarks made years earlier that he believed his completion of McKinley's term should constitute his own first term as well.
   
   Roosevelt's executive strength lie in national defense and foreign policy. He had long been a disciple of the Alfred Thayer Mann school of strong navies, and it is not surprising that the Panama Canal is one of his legacies. The canal's strategic importance in two subsequent world wars has dulled Americans to the memory of Roosevelt's Caribbean chicanery in making it possible. In T.R.'s defense it can be said that he was probably as knowledgeable of world politics as any president of his era and very much a realist on matters of American military capabilities.
   
   His understanding of Emperor Wilhelm and the deteriorating European alignment probably made his retirement extremely difficult, and he seems to have been rather unsatisfied with his progress of effecting the "Square Deal" for American workers. Much of this frustration was projected onto his anointed successor, William Howard Taft. Roosevelt's treatment of Taft as described by Brands is morally repugnant, and one is hard pressed to feel much sympathy for Roosevelt's political derailing in 1912.
   
   The complexity of Roosevelt's affections for Taft might come as a surprise to those who subscribe to Henry Adams' description of T.R. as "pure act." In truth, Roosevelt's psyche and the complexities of his personal life deserve and receive substantial attention. Consider, for example, his conjugal life. After a brief infatuation with Edith Carow, Roosevelt was smitten by her friend Alice Lee and eventually married her. In letters to his friends Roosevelt described his life with Alice as unimaginably happy. What he could not have foreseen was Alice's untimely death in childbirth. The reader must make what he will of Roosevelt's behavior in his grief, as he gave away baby Alice to relatives until he was well established in his second marriage to the runner-up Edith. It was Edith, hardly naïve to the realities of the situation, who bore the next five of Roosevelt's children.
   
   Roosevelt's record as a husband and father was mixed. One winces at his absences and hunting trips. On the other hand, he professed and lived a fined tuned moral stance toward marital fidelity and parenting. Whether his longtime wife Edith ever felt she had received a "Square Deal"....



3. This book was HW Brands' first book-length biography. He tackled a challenging subject and succeeded marvelously. The thing about Teddy Roosevelt is that he would be a fascinating character even if he had not become President.
   
   To fit Roosevelt's life into a single volume extended the book to 800+ pages (paperback), but well worth the read. This life deserves it. TR's maniacal energy pulses through the book. TR was a true polymath as well as a 'man of action'. He charges through the book and a towering public career with 'dee-lightful' gusto. An extreme example: he gave a speech in Milwaukee despite still bleeding from a gunshot received that same day. Roosevelt's biggest political mistake came when he announced that he would not run for second full term (He did so because he had served nearly all of McKinley's term). As a result he was out of office at the age of 50!
   
   At the same time his private life revealed a darkness. Stunned by the early death of his father when he was a youth and then by the deaths of his first wife and mother on the same night when he was at Harvard, Roosevelt seems to have never recovered emotionally. After the latter event, he left for the Dakotas and his cowboy period leaving his infant daughter (the redoubtable Alice Roosevelt Longworth) behind. The child, whose mother died two days after her birth, was virtually ignored by Roosevelt. Near the end of his life his youngest son dies in World War One and TR is crushed.
   
   Brands makes extensive use of Roosevelt's personal letters to tell the story of this amazing life. Highly recommended.



4. I grew up being a fan of Theodore Roosevelt. His energy, unabased patriotism, and concern for the people all attracted me. As time went on and I learned more of him that admiration slowly receded. Nowadays, I can admire his energy but his patriotism I realise was over the line, border line jingoism. His 'concern' for the people caused him to ignore and reinterpert the Constitution in ways favorably to actions he wanted to take.
   
   That said, Mr. Brands has not done a particularly interesting book. The style of writing is breezy and almost tabloid in style. Details are often lacking and opinions are injected without indentifing themselves as such. In stark contrast to Theodore Rex by Mr. Morris, this book seems to be a lightweight. Little concern is apparent in Mr. Brands writings concerneing the damage TR was doing to both the nation and Constitution with his cavaliar attitude in governing the nation. If you want to know about TR's decision making at critical junctions in history or indepth background to such, this is not the book for you. Mr. Morris' book is far better then this Hollywood style tome.
   
   At best this book might be a TR primer, for sure it is not the best book on the subject.



5. I am very pleased to add this book by Brands to my T.R.collection. He gave me more insight to Roosevelt's life as a man, a husband, a father and a President. A very good, informative read.

5 comments about The Dark Side of Camelot.

1. Legend and hero are the words most of us learn in school to apply to John F. Kennedy. We usually tend to see him only in his media and photographic image, but Seymour Hersh portrays him here as being a man with an abundant set of flaws and characteristics. Most likely, although I grant that not everything the author says can be definitively proven, Hersh's depiction of JFK is far closer to that of the real person than the one we see gazing down upon us in posters. Of course, The Dark Side of Camelot is about a whole lot more than the 35th President. We find out all manner of fact and rumor concerning his grandfather, Honey Fitz, his father, and the rest of his family; not to mention Richard Nixon and an array of women who are too numerous to name here. Kennedy was the quintessential high status male, and, intrinsic to his status, were a great many politically incorrect features that are fun to read about (while still being informative in regards to the leader and his times).



2. Mr. Hersh paints a convincing picture of JFK as an extremely hard working, ambitious man who was party to a myriad of addictions including painkillers and sex. I actually found the early sections of the book which deal primarily with his father Joe Kennedy to be insightful into the kind of environment he grew up in and undoubtably led to his immoral nature. Where Hersh is on weaker ground is when he tries to psychoanalyze JFK. He attempts to connect all of Kennedy's personal issues to decisions made about international politics, a hazardous course. I think Hersh was too close to Kennedy and his sense of profound disappointment as well as his breathy, rumormonger style of writing sometimes hurts his credibility which is unforunate because I think the author wrote a thought provoking, intelligent book



3. Normally I would not review an 11-year-old book, but as it presents a distorted view of JFK to say the least, and is still in print in 2008, here goes.
   
   Mr. Hersh has obliged his corporate and government sponsors with a double-barreled hit. First, he produced a best-seller, and second, he produced a JFK biography sure to please both the corporates and their government cronies.
   
   Mr. Hersh reveals JFK's sexual escapades in great length and detail. I estimate that at least 25% of the book is spent on this topic. This is fair enough, since JFK apparently spent the same percentage of his time pursuing sexual adventures. Mr. Hersh also presents much evidence backing claims of JFK's health problems, including frequent doses of various medications that kept him going. The early chapters tell some interesting stories about JFK's father, Joseph, and other family members including JFK's maternal grandfather, John F. "Honey Fitz" Fitzgerald.
   
   Mr. Hersh presents some interesting insights into crucial moments in JFK's presidency. The Bay of Pigs, the Berlin crisis, the Cuba missile crisis, plots to assassinate Fidel Castro, and the escalation of US involvement in Vietnam are dealt with in detail. Mr. Hersh contradicts accounts of these events written by close Kennedy associates, Ted Sorensen in particular. Mr. Hersh reveals a secretive, inexperienced, power-hungry and vindictive President who trusted only one man other than himself, his brother Robert. There does seem to be some truth to Hersh's contradictory accounts, but there also seems to be an underlying motivation behind this book, and this is the promotion of an official version of JFK and his presidency that focuses on JFK's personal weaknesses, presents CIA in a favorable light, and either lies about important events, or omits them entirely.
   
   Did you know, for example, that the Bay of Pigs fiasco was entirely JFK's fault? Did you know that JFK and RFK micro-managed plots involving the Mafia to kill Castro, and that the Vietnam War is JFK's legacy, not something he would have ended? With that knowledge, surely you should also learn about JFK's firing of Allan Dulles (later appointed to the Warren Commission), General Cabell and Richard Bissell? Sorry, that's not in the official story. Furthermore, since JFK was obviously so much at odds with CIA, surely you should read about JFK's threats to disband CIA? Sorry again.
   
   I quote from the "Author's Note" at the beginning of the book:
   
   "It [this book] tells of otherwise strong and self-reliant men and women
   who were awed and seduced by Kennedy's magnetism, and who competed with
   one another to please the most charismatic leader in our nation's history.
   Many are still blinded today.
   
   In writing this book, my hope is that I have been able to help the nation
   reclaim some of its history."
   
   Some very select and well chosen bits of its history, perhaps, but nothing that really matters, like who was responsible for JFK's assassination. Mr. Hersh is not one to talk about being "blinded", as he still professes to believe the official Lee Harvey Oswald "lone nut assassin" myth. Among the few remaining adherents to the myth are mainstream corporate media types like Mr. Hersh, anyone in government, and current and former intelligence agency employees who don't want to lose their security clearances or be sentenced to "dine alone". John Loftus and Tennent H. "Pete" Bagley are two examples of the latter.
   
   Despite this best-selling book and others written with the same intent, most of the public continue to admire JFK despite knowing that he was a highly flawed human being. Most people also disbelieve the official lone-nut assassin myths about JFK and RFK. To remove the spell of Mr. Hersh's quote above, I'll close with a quote from St. John Hunt (source: a Rolling Stone article you can easily find), author of "The Last Confessions of E. Howard Hunt":
   
   "Actually, there were probably dozens of plots to kill Kennedy, because everybody hated Kennedy but the public."
   
   Edit June 22, 2008: There is a new book that anyone with an interest in JFK should read: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. In particular, it puts paid to Hersh's contention that Vietnam must be considered as part of the Kennedy legacy.



4. Seymour Hersh, the man according to whom we have to thank for the Church Commission (which led to idiotic government intelligence "reforms" that, in turn, contributed to the intelligence failures that permitted 9-11), presents his best shot in this book at smearing the Kennedy clan. John especially, but also Joe and even to a certain extent Bobby. In most of the book, he succeeds in this task only to the extent we can trust mobsters, convicted felons, former madams, self-professed ex-lovers, hustlers, disgruntled employees and bankrupt, disbarred attorneys to tell us the truth.
   
   However, Mr. Hersh does present some very compelling testimonies from JFK's secret service agents, who describe JFK's White House adolescent hijinks in rhyparographic detail. Believe me, that section alone (pp 226-246) is enough to take the shine off Camelot -- permanently.
   
   Hersh is perplexing. He has impeccable anti-American and Democratic Party credentials, yet he savages JFK, a fellow Democrat, in a way that no one had done before, or in the eleven years since the book was published. Why? I can only conclude that Hersh's anger stems from his view that JFK was responsible for Vietnam. Hersh addresses Vietnam in the last two chapters of the book, and although these chapters are better sourced than some of the more salacious sections, the chapters seem disjointed, meandering, and tied together only by rage towards JFK.



5. Given the obvious falsehood of the Clinton era nonsense that personal morality is irrelevant to the public figure, we now need to start in on the fools who, with hubris and no qualms about bald-faced lying to the American public, we need to start revising our views of the men REALLY responsible for mutilating the constitution in favor of ego and a misguided sense that they knew better than the founding fathers, instead of just second tier types like JFK, academicians should start on the (attempted) court packing, congenital liar, and true war monger F.D.R (or the brain dead, subservient socialist mouthpiece Woodrow Wilson, and his Edgar Bergan, Col. House.) One chapter on what could have happened if F.D.R had died before replacing Socialist Henry Wallace during his last, fourth,ego-trip term-perhaps Henry Dexter White as Secretary of State and Alger Hiss as Secretary of Defense should make it obvious what a dangerous, naive fool F.D.R was. It COULD have been even worse than that, instead of "just" knowing every secret communication out of F.D.R's White House sieve, Stalin could have actually RUN the damn thing personally. Given what F.D.R gave Stalin at Yalta, what would Wallace have given him? All of Western Europe, too, or just Germany,France and England?

5 comments about Woodrow Wilson.

1. The American Presidents series, condensed biographies of individual presidents by eminent historians, makes the lives of our nation's readers accessible for general readers. That said, the books work better when resurrecting the memory of nearly forgotten minor presidents such as Rutheford B. Hayes than they do documenting the accomplishments of major historical figures like Woodrow Wilson. Simply put, Wilson's life was just too full to be given real justice by a 40,000 or so word manuscript.

   Limited by the format, Texas A&M Professor of History H.W. Brands gamely gives it his best shot. The author of such first rate works as "TR - The Last Romantic" and "The Age of Gold" recounts Wilson's life, devoting most of the mere 139 pages of narrative to his presidency. It's a good overview, and one that will likely whet the appetite of many readers to know more. Wilson was a strong, controversial and enigmatic leader. A progressive and idealist on the international front, for example, he was still very much a son of the South who strongly supported segregation at home. Brands deals with such events as World War One, the failed battle for ratification of the Versailles peace treaty and Wilson's debilitating 1919 stroke, but doesn't delve much into the details.

   Overall, a good if all-too-brief overview of Woodrow Wilson's life.




2. H.W. Brands' output over the last five years has been enormous. From huge biographies on Theodore Roosevelt and Benjamin Franklin to fair-sized books on the California Gold Rush and several major U.S. business figures to a slim volume on Americans' relationship with their federal government, the Texas A&M historian has published at least six books over the last five years that I'm aware of. The four which I've read have had the same qualities: solid scholarship and writing, but nothing flashy or standout about them.

   Brands' biography of Woodrow Wilson fits in this pattern. The book is an easy and enjoyable read. The scholarship is solid (I enjoyed reading the short but striking comments for each of the books mentioned in the "selected bibliography"). Occasionally, Brands is even eloquent as when he describes the effect on Wilson of the death of his first wife.

   Nevertheless, as with every other book of Brands I've read, "Woodrow Wilson" never soars to become a great work. The reason eludes me. Brands seems to have all the gifts to write a memorable history or biography, but his work remains a little too flat and it fades too quickly from the reader's mind. He does not break out of this mold with "Woodrow Wilson".




3. No one can truly understand the issues of the modern era without knowledge of of the man who mid-wifed it into existence, Woodrow Wilson. In his biography of Wilson's presidency, Professor H.W. Brands brings his insightful style and keen sense of relationships between critical events. One learns enough from this rather short book to ask the next set of more interesting questions.

   Absent Wilson, would there have been a central bank, the Federal Reserve, in the U.S.? How did the Wilson presidency effect the direction of the national income tax? What did Wilson do to foster the growth of centralized federal power in the U.S.?

   Absent Wilson's inept diplomacy, would the U.S. have become so involved in World War I, first by funding Britain and France, and then by participating in the combat? Would the Great War have lasted so long and caused so much damage to the fabric of European civilization and colonial influence? Would the world ever have heard of Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini, veterans both of front line combat?

   Absent U.S. participation in the European War, would a pedestrian lawyer, and middling state-level politician named Franklin Delano Roosevelt have found his first federal job as Assistant Secretary of the Navy? Would the U.S. ever have bred such soldiers as Douglas MacArthur and Harry Truman, and most of the rest of the list of future political-military leaders of mid-century?

   Absent events put into motion by Wilson, would Russia have broken up and descended into a Bolshevik Revolution? Would the Ottoman Empire have dissolved, to spawn the modern politics of the Middle East? Would the concept of League of Nations/world governance ever have gained the traction it did?

   Had Wilson never been president, would the U.S. and the world have had a far different 20th Century? Or was Wilson just one man in a particular time of great change? Germany and Italy had been building centralized, debt-financed governance for 40 years by the time Wilson walked into the White House. So did Wilson make history, guide history , or was he merely governed by historical forces whose time had come?

   Like it or not, we lived the 20th Century in Wilson's Century, and in the 21st Century we still follow the path he blazed. Wilson's ghost hovers over the plains of the Republic, walks the halls of power in every government building, and touches the lives of every person who draws a breath.




4. You must guard your expectations on a biography (especially of a two term president) that only reads 138 pages. However, I thought that H.W. Brands could add his typical free flowing style and story-telling ability to make a completely satisfying short-read. Unfortuantely, Brands delivers his least inspired performance in telling the story of Wilson. Obviously, the context of the project (a short "taste" on the life of Wilson) curtailed Brands style, which I found to be my biggest disappointment.
   
   As a whole - the life of Wilson is fascinating - a great turning point in the life of "liberals" (While Wilson would certainly not be considered a "liberal" by today's standards). Wilson implemented the 8 hour work day, the FTC, and stiffened anti-trust laws.... not to mention a monstrous epidemnic of the flu... and oh yeah.... World War I. Unfortunately - most of these issues are just briefly touched on (The flu epidemic was not even mentioned).
   
   As a whole - I found this to be a fair brief glimpse into the life of Wilson. However, I would have love to read one of Brand's standard 400 pagers on the life of Wilson.



5. H.W. Brands has written ambitious biographies of American historical figures, including a major work on the life of Andrew Jackson. Here, in keeping within the format of the American Presidents Series, Brands has writtten a shorter, but nontheless, insightful work. Wilson might have been a great president but, he was flawed. He was stubborn and uncompromising. Although he suffered a major stroke in his second term, he evidentally had suffered other, less serious strokes over the years. It is difficult to say whether his physical condition led to his unwillingness to yield but, much that could have been accomplished through compromise never came to fruition.
   
   An early sign of Wilson's concreteness appeared during his presidency of Princeton University. There was a dispute as to whether the graduate school should be located on the main campus or at another site. Wilson, a proponent of locating it on campus refused to negotiate a compromise and the project was stalled.
   
   Wilson was a Virginian and his racial attitudes were that of the Jim Crow South. However, being president of Princeton established his credentials as a New Jersey resident and Democratic party leaders put him up for governor of that state. He was elected and he showed remarkable independence as he proposed reforms that disappointed the party leaders and led them to consider him to be an ingrate. Later, when he was elected President of the United States, he continued his reform path in domestic matters.
   
   What defined his presidency was World War I and its aftermath. After the war, Wilson traveled to Europe to negotiate the peace treaty. On a tour of Europe, he was cheered wildly whereever he went. He was a genuine hero. However, in the negotiations England and France sought to impose harsh terms on Germany whereas Wilson sought more leniency. The heart of Wilson's Fourteen points proposal was a League of Nations. This League was included in the treaty and Wilson's next major battle was to get the Senate to ratify it. Here is where Wilson's stubborness did him in. Rather than negotiate with Republicans in the Senate, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, Wilson bypassed them and took his case to the people in a speaking tour. This was not the way to win favor in the Senate.
   
   Wilson's most egregious error, probably compounded by his stroke, was his total unwillingness to yield on one point regarding the League of Nations; i.e. a clause that required members to come to the aid of other members militarily. Republicans in the Senate were concerned that this clause might weaken US sovereignty. They noted that under the Constitution, it was the Senate, not the President who decalred war. Paul Johnson, in his "History of the American People" noted that if one of Great Britain's colonial possessions, such as India, had been attacked, the treaty might require the United states to get involved militarily. Anyway, Wilson refused to allow a reservation which would clarify the United States' understanding of the clause to the satisfaction of Lodge and other concerned Senators. Accordingly, the treaty didn't pass the Senate.
   
   The tragedy of the Wilson presidency is that so much more could have been accomplished. He was a great reformer on domestic issues and was a popular war president. However, his one major flaw kept him from achieving true greatness. Brand does a good job in capturing the essence of Wilson and I recommend this book.

5 comments about Cromwell.

1. Cromwell is perhaps the single most controversial figure in English history. Only John and Richard III have attracted as much venom as he has, and there are still people alive today who hate him -- see some of the other reviews here for at least one example. Naturally the truth is complicated, and Fraser lays out a good deal of detail in support of her case, which is that Cromwell was much maligned, and was on the whole a good and religious man trying hard to do what he thought was right.

   I had no prior belief about Cromwell, but I have to say Fraser convinced me rather of the opposite -- that he was a religious fanatic, brilliant but limited, who was neither a great ruler nor personally very admirable. Her apologies for some of his worst sins, such as the terrible events in Ireland, are outlandish.

   On the plus side, this is a thorough and detailed book, with enough information to allow a reader to make up their own mind. Fraser does at least keep the facts separate from her opinions. The book is excellent on Cromwell himself; it's pretty good on details of the Civil Wars, though it doesn't go to the level that an exclusively military history might. However, it's surprisingly weak on the overall political background. To truly understand Cromwell you need to know what came before and after. I would have liked to see more about the religious state of the country, and why it got that way, and also about the Revolution of only thirty years after his death. But in concentrating on Cromwell the man (at perhaps too great a length), Fraser has skimped on the surrounding politics.

   Overall, I'd recommend this only if you're deeply interested in knowing a lot about Cromwell's life, or if you already know the political and religious framework of the years 1640-1660. If you know both, this is a fine book (allowing for Fraser's open bias) but it's no place to start.

   One other note: the paperback edition (which is what I have) does not have any of the photographs or other plates that are apparently in the hardback -- Fraser makes occasional reference to "the plate opposite page 709" and so on, so I would bear that in mind in choosing between the two editions.




2. Most of my review will echo the discontents expressed by my fellow reviewers, but I hope I can provide an original analysis. If you are deliberating on whether to read this book, do not delve into the lengthy journey without prior knowledge of Cromwell. A more terse and concise biography is more suitable for the beginner. Antonia Fraser knows this time period intimately, and she would probably be incapable to produce a more superficial work on such a massive figure in English history. Although there is a small amount of side information and exposition about the historical events surrounding Cromwell (e.g., The English Civil War), the reader gets the feeling that the author assumes that we know much of the pertinent information already. This causes the novice reader on Cromwell to tend to find herself lost during some of the key events in his life. With some prior knowledge of the time period, this confusion could be avoided.
   
   Antonia Fraser is an erudite writer with stylistic flair, but is also painfully verbose. The sentences are often long and protracted, often with frequent use of the characteristic British punctuation, the semicolon. The result is a biography that is over a hundred pages too long. This is especially true when one considers that this biography is purely a narrative, and there is little writing that delves into the theoretical and political ideas that motivated Cromwell. This may be because Cromwell was motivated by fanatical and zealous devotion to his religion. When one is so enthralled by an unsubstantiated, uncouth dogma, there is little room to ponder questions when an inept but clear answer is to be found. Cromwell was not a theoretician, but a pragmatic man. This is interesting because most of his language and actions are littered with references to the metaphysical, however crude and obtuse those references and underlying thoughts are.
   
   Fraser paints Cromwell as an avuncular, charming man whose religious ethics seeped into his daily actions. While this may be true when applied to his personal life, it is impossible to reconcile this image with the man who sanctioned and even performed atrocities during his invasion of Ireland. The motivation for Fraser's subtle attempt at vindicating Cromwell can only be speculated on, but perhaps she is so enamored with English history that it became nature for her to fall in love with one of its heroes. Whatever the motivation, the bias is there, and needs to be acknowledged.
   
   For those that merely want to get a sense of who Cromwell was and the time period he lived in, a shorter biography will suffice. Try and pick one without the verbosity and slight sycophancy of Fraser.



3. Growing up an Irish Catholic American, I grew up hating Oliver Cromwell without really knowing why (an influence of my Irish grandmother). Fraser's biography of this brilliant and driven soldier is thoroughly researched and surprisingly sympathetic. She gives a great insight into what drove this man as well as giving a broad look at the political, cultural, and religious influences behind the brutal English Civil War. Cromwell was a brilliant general whose strategic and tactical genious beat the King's trained forces. His genius, unfortunately, did not extend to the political sphere. This is a great account of a flawed individual.



4. Fraser's book is best at trying to place Cromwell in his time. It is pointless to upbraid her for writing a book about someone who could be an unpleasant, violent and designing character - Europe was full of even more violent generals and religous fanatics at the time
   
   By carefully following his career and the people around him she shows how he rose from mediocrity to high office AND was a brilliant general even though he started as at the age of 40
   
   I thought it was well written and a good introduction to a complex character in a complex time



5. This was a concise and thoroughly researched book on Oliver Cromwell. I have only one complaint - Antonia Fraser eludes to illustrations that are not present in the book. Either a cost cutting decision or gross incompetence on behalf of the publisher, it is a major distraction. If deciding to purchase this softcover edition, keep that fact in mind.